Detroit Lions Offseason Thread 2023

[NYLion]

30 minutes ago, buddha said:

goff and geno both have questions to answer this year.  i dont think that's a controversial opinion.

as long as ben johnson is here, i think goff will be a fine game manager, which is what they want him to be.  dont turn the ball over, manage the game, dont put the defense in a bad position.

It's not controversial to say that both have questions to answer but Geno has far more proving to do. Goff has had like 4 good NFL seasons and was Pro Bowl level at two different stops while Geno was a trainwreck up until last season, a complete bust. 

I've said this before, Goff is comparable to Stafford in terms of career trajectory. Geno is almost unprecedented for a bust to come out of nowhere after 30 and have a good season. He has far more questions to answer than Goff in terms of proving that he can be an above average starter in this league, all while being 4 years older than him.

[gehringer_2]

It's a long way back but the guy that comes to mind for me would be Jim Plunkett. ROY then pretty much nothing much at all statistically or win wise for a number of years. Now I suppose the original question is a little misput because you can't be 'horrible' and stay in the league but for a number of years no-one thought a team led by Plunkett was likely to win anything - then two SB wins after age 32.

Edited May 3, 2023 by gehringer_2

[MichiganCardinal]

In a league where so much changes week-to-week, let alone year-to-year, I don’t think looking back at past years and past matchups indicates future success or outcomes at all.

The Lions got shutout by the Patriots last year, I don’t think that means we are a worse team than them until we beat them. Last time the Bucs played the Lions, Robert Prince was our interim coach while the rest of the staff had COVID and we lost 47-7. That doesn’t mean the Bucs are better than us until we play them this year.

It’s a week-to-week league. The Chiefs will beat the Texans 9/10 times they play. That doesn’t mean if the 1/10 happens, the Texans are better than the Chiefs until they play again.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

It's a long way back but the guy that comes to mind for me would be Jim Plunkett. ROY then pretty much nothing much at all statistically or win wise for a number of years. Now I suppose the original question is little misput because you can't be 'horrible' and stay in the league but for a number of years no-one thought a team with Plunkett was likely to win anything - then two SBs after age 32.

Plunkett was ROY like you mentioned. Geno Smith was flat out awful with the Jets and was a journeyman backup for years. Only comp I come up with is Rich Gannon but IIRC injuries were a part of Gannon's early career. 

[RandyMarsh]

Anothet kinda similar Geno comp is none other than Jim Harbaugh. Jim was probably a little better with the Bears than Geno was with the Jets but he wasn't exactly good. Wasn't until his first year in Indy at the age of 32 where he made his 1st and only Pro Bowl and put superior numbers across the board to what he had at any point before. 

[Motown Bombers]

You look at the splits and Geno Smith did start to crater back to reality by the end of the season. Goff got better as the season went on. As the run game regressed with Swift being injured, they leaned on Goff more and he got better. Goff had more pass attempts in December than any other month and had his best month of the season. It was also when the Lions were in playoff contention. Geno Smith in December also had the most pass attempts of the year but it was his worst four game stretch of the year and Seattle was 1-3. 

[Motown Bombers]

5 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Anothet kinda similar Geno comp is none other than Jim Harbaugh. Jim was probably a little better with the Bears than Geno was with the Jets but he wasn't exactly good. Wasn't until his first year in Indy at the age of 32 where he made his 1st and only Pro Bowl and put superior numbers across the board to what he had at any point before. 

That is a good comp. I wouldn't say Harbaugh was as bad as Geno but those early Bears teams were a lot better than the Jets. 

[buddha]

23 minutes ago, NYLion said:

It's not controversial to say that both have questions to answer but Geno has far more proving to do. Goff has had like 4 good NFL seasons and was Pro Bowl level at two different stops while Geno was a trainwreck up until last season, a complete bust. 

I've said this before, Goff is comparable to Stafford in terms of career trajectory. Geno is almost unprecedented for a bust to come out of nowhere after 30 and have a good season. He has far more questions to answer than Goff in terms of proving that he can be an above average starter in this league, all while being 4 years older than him.

i think goff and stafford are very different qbs in terms of style and skill set.

[Motown Bombers]

10 minutes ago, buddha said:

i think goff and stafford are very different qbs in terms of style and skill set.

They aren't. It's their career trajectories. Both Stafford and Goff had rather abysmal partial rookie seasons. Both then quickly peaked. Both then regressed and hit bottom around age 25-26. Both got new offensive coordinators around age 27 and both started to rebound and become less turnover prone passers under the new offensive coordinator. One had the narrative that he's only successful because of the coordinator while the other did not. 

[buddha]

25 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

They aren't. It's their career trajectories. Both Stafford and Goff had rather abysmal partial rookie seasons. Both then quickly peaked. Both then regressed and hit bottom around age 25-26. Both got new offensive coordinators around age 27 and both started to rebound and become less turnover prone passers under the new offensive coordinator. One had the narrative that he's only successful because of the coordinator while the other did not. 

career trajectory and play style/attributes are really two different things.

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

career trajectory and play style/attributes are really two different things.

Right and NYLion literally said career trajectory. 

[NYLion]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

i think goff and stafford are very different qbs in terms of style and skill set.

I'm talking about career trajectory and projecting that forward, Goff's trajectory is eerily similar to Stafford while also carrying #1 draft pick pedigree

My general point is that Goff has a better shot at maintaining a higher level of QB play than Geno Smith because he has a much longer track record of success at a much younger age. Goff is more like Stafford in terms of projecting quality forward. Smith has no comparable because it's unprecedented for a QB to all of a sudden come out of nowhere to be a quality starter at 32.

Edited May 3, 2023 by NYLion

[Motown Bombers]

This decline as the season went on should be troubling if you're on team Geno. 

[Jason_R]

All of this talk about career trajectory and Goff being more likely to succeed thank Geno reminds me of a bowler trying to control the path of his ball by leaning back and forth. They’ll play the games they play and have the seasons they have. But Seattle had a better season last year that Detroit and they may have had a better draft than Detroit. 

[Motown Bombers]

Seattle and Detroit had the same record and Seattle literally needed Detroit to get them into the playoffs. 

[buddha]

seattle beat detroit.  that's why they made the playoffs and detroit didnt.

all we needed to do was make geno and seattle punt.

once.

and we couldnt do it.

[Motown Bombers]

8 minutes ago, buddha said:

seattle beat detroit.  that's why they made the playoffs and detroit didnt.

all we needed to do was make geno and seattle punt.

once.

and we couldnt do it.

Yes and no. If the Lions didn't beat the Packers then Seattle misses the playoffs. It's why all of Seattle were Lions fans that night. 

[Jason_R]

Woulda coulda shoulda.

Seattle was a better team than Detroit last year. They arguably had a better draft than Detroit this year. I think most people would put Detroit’s free agent haul over Seattle’s but the Seahawks added a lot of defensive talent. 

Detroit may end up being better than Seattle this season, but any ranking that has Detroit in a tier above Seattle simply can’t be taken seriously. 

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, Jason_R said:

Woulda coulda shoulda.

Seattle was a better team than Detroit last year. They arguably had a better draft than Detroit this year. I think most people would put Detroit’s free agent haul over Seattle’s but the Seahawks added a lot of defensive talent. 

Detroit may end up being better than Seattle this season, but any ranking that has Detroit in a tier above Seattle simply can’t be taken seriously. 

They had the same record. 

[buddha]

11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

They had the same record. 

were minnesota and the ny giants better teams than detroit?

[Motown Bombers]

Lions and Seattle had the same record, but the Lions had the better point differential, strength of schedule, strength of victory (Seattle was 3rd lowest in the NFC), and the Lions beat more playoff teams than Seattle. 

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

were minnesota and the ny giants better teams than detroit?

Not by the end of the year. Neither was Seattle. 

[TP_Fan]

We really arguing this?

Last I checked geno smith is still their QB. Seattle won’t make the playoffs this coming year. Detroit will.

Book it. 

[Motown Bombers]

Seattle played the NFC South where no team finished above 500 and still went 0-4. 

[RandyMarsh]

The Lions also had a higher DVOA and ELO rating. Really there was nothing to indicate that the Seahawks were any better than the Lions other than a 3pt victory at a time in the season where the Lions defense was playing at its worst and the offense was missing most of their playmakers.